#1 Re: LT69Hex » Renewed victory declaration - TriClad, Nyala and Jwrober » 2022-06-07 22:00:38

Technically, it's 5-day period, but I don't think it will matter here. I'm only mentioning it because there was a dispute in one of earlier games.

#3 Re: Ruleset analysis and discussion » Global warming reshuffle » 2021-11-14 11:39:08

Second iteration of the idea:

1. Pollution baseline per city already exists in ruleset files. It can be adjusted.

2. Any excess pollution (beyond baseline) adds to ExcessCO2, add all cities.

3. every turn: climate_change_rate (was "chance of catastrophic warming") = climate_rate_change + ExcessCO2 * globalwarming_percent (the latter is a server setting)

4. For every 100 climate_change_rate, 1 tile somewhere in the world is automatically changed every turn, the remainder goes as probability for an additional tile.

This creates the mechanism and calibration is fully up to the ruleset. Ruleset testing is needed in order to get the desired effect but that is no longer a concern of the developers.

For added realism:

5. Every forest/jungle tile in the world decreases total ExcessCO2 by 1.

#4 Ruleset analysis and discussion » Global warming reshuffle » 2021-11-14 10:00:26

Replies: 1

The GW mechanism in Freeciv is just plain wrong, realism-wise and gameplay-wise. It has a period of accumulation where nothing happens and then it blows up and creates massive damage in one turn. Firstly, this is not how climate change works and, secondly, it creates discrete and abrupt havoc on players' lands.

Instead, I propose the following:

1. Population pollution (PP) and industrial pollution (IP) are completely separated.

2. PP influences the rate of creation of polluted tiles on the map and ends there.

3. What is now global "Pollution rate" is renamed to "Excess CO2" and is no longer influenced by the polluted tiles on the map. Instead, it is a direct consequence of the sum of all IP across the map.

4. "Chance of catastrophic warming each turn" is renamed to "Climate change rate" and works in the following way:
- it is now the chance that ONE TILE somewhere will suffer change on one turn (grass to swamp, swamp to water, plains to desert).
- once this happens, the rate does not go back to zero, but remains the same / grows further with increasing IP
- once the rate exceeds 100, one tile suffers change automatically and the remainder (P-100) is the probability for an additional tile suffering change; once it exceeds 200, it's 2 tiles + probability and so on

Both PP and IP conversions to effective events should be controlled by server/ruleset settings; probably the ones already in place can be used.

A simpler solution would be to not separate IP and PP, but for both of them to work on both polluting tiles and excess CO2.

OR to leave most things as they are, only apply #4 and ignore #1, #2 and #3.

#5 Ruleset analysis and discussion » Transferring production between cities » 2021-11-13 23:30:56

Replies: 0

In Civ, city production depends solely on the neighbouring tiles. However, in RL things work very differently: the location of industrial centres depends on many other things. If you have a coal or iron rich area, it benefits the whole country, not only neighbouring city. Industrial products are transported to other cities and the nation's industry depends on organisation of routes, not which city is near which coal or iron mine. So I would like Freeciv to reflect this and allow cities in unfavourable locations to have good production if it is organised well (and sufficient tech level is reached).

I can think of three ways of doing this.

1. This method is already available, but there is a problem. First, the method: cities fulfilling conditions (export-import buildings present) and connected with trade routes "exchange" shields simply by one city having +X shields and the other -X shields. The problem: trade routes can't be cut which removes flexibility crucial for this to work. So, the change that would need to be done is simply making it possible to cut a trade route through user interface.

2. Interface item that simply says "transfer X production from A to B". No idea how that would be implemented, any idea is good, I guess, but as long as it works, nobody has the right to complain.

3. A Caravan-like unit that transports X amount of shields, "helps build" whatever is being built and works for everything, not only for wonders.

So, which of these methods would be most neat and/or which would be the easiest to implement?

EDIT: Turns out, #3 is already available.

#6 Re: New games » Idea for a permanent game » 2021-10-27 08:47:17

More technicalities, coding needed: buildings deteriorate with a probability that is a function of how much the player has been idle. Also population. Maybe population is more important if we are going to calculate score.

#7 New games » Idea for a permanent game » 2021-10-24 13:29:47

Replies: 2

Just an idea I'm having while sitting idly waiting for some things to finish... A permanent game, 2-5 minute turns, whoever wants to connect at any time can do so. Score is recorded from the beginning to the end of his session and a difference or ratio is used to measure his success (divided by the number of turns he played or something like that).

Tech upkeep is enabled so that when a nation loses its leader (when he goes offline), it deteriorates so if someone takes it over a few hours later, he gets the room for moving forward again.

Defense units in the capital have brutal defence power and basically can't be destroyed so that no nation is killed and has an opportunity to bounce back when someone takes it over.

#8 Re: Longturn.net services » Structure of the longturn project » 2021-09-25 19:36:42

mu wrote:

Still,  to have just 1 channel would be hard to overlook.

Did you mean "easy" instead of "hard"?

#9 Re: Longturn.net services » Structure of the longturn project » 2021-09-25 19:12:50

Fair enough. But do you believe that a single channel on the existing server would do?

And what kind of announcements do you believe would have a place there? Can you make a list?

#10 Re: Longturn.net services » Structure of the longturn project » 2021-09-25 15:23:33

There is an admin write-only channel in the existing server, but it's simply not used as often as it should be, it's called #news-channel. The reason it is not used is simply that we don't really do things officially and professionally, but in our free time and between everything else. So, we could make an additional server, but I am confident that it would be poorly maintained.

Basically, when you are not using existing resources to their fullest, the answer is not to create more resources.

This is an amateur project maintained by a limited number of people. If anyone would like to step into an additional duty, we will welcome it. Asking us to take additional regular duties will probably not result in success.

So, the main question to everyone with ideas is: what are you willing to do to make the whole project better?

#11 Ruleset analysis and discussion » Getting info about enemy movement while you are offline » 2021-09-23 10:29:40

Replies: 0

I'll put this here for bookkeeping purposes.

When you log on, you should get all the information about any enemy unit that crossed your line of sight. Simply, it makes perfect sense and the opposite doesn't make any sense at all. Your units/people/citizens have eyes, enemy movements is reported. Also, not having this automatically reported heavily favours someone who is online and can see enemy moving. (There is a 6-hour rule, but it can be avoided if you are smart.)

The problem is that reporting every tile in the Messages screen creates information overload.

So, how to solve it with the minimum amount of coding?

Yes, there is a patch currently in action that involves sentried units, but it is very limited. Definitely better than nothing, but, again, if you are smart, you can make it useless and minimise reports your enemy is getting.

#12 Re: Ruleset analysis and discussion » Changes to restrictinfra » 2021-08-05 20:44:41

The whole point I'm trying to make:  in reality, "borders" and "control" are two completely different things. "Borders cause control" only during peacetime because all parties agree on it, while in war borders effectively don't exist.

I don't think a "clear depiction of control in the form of borders" is something we should aim for. Official borders are a consequence of agreements. Control is a matter of the situation in the field. If you want to do a war right, there should be fuzzyness and unclarity (if that's a word).

#13 Re: Ruleset analysis and discussion » Changes to restrictinfra » 2021-08-05 19:42:15

Hans_Lemurson wrote:

Borders, in my opinion, are the best way to represent the territory that you have "control" over.  Not just the obvious fact of "that's literally what they represent",

Actually, this is very wrong. You can have a border 3 tiles away from the city, the city can be under siege with space between enemy and the border completely under enemy control, and the enemy would get restricted movement, not you.

Borders are an agreed construct. They lie where the two parties agree in peace. In war, they are meaningless.

but rather that they are visual!  Clear lines on the map that clearly say what land you have freedom and control in, and what land is hostile to you.

This is also very problematic. The only way to know if you control an area is having someone there. Hell, the only way to CONTROL an area is to have someone there. Nobody there - no control. You can say that Civ is an approximation and that borders actually represent something. I'd say that they SHOULD represent something, but they do it very poorly under current mechanic.

#14 Re: Ruleset analysis and discussion » Changes to restrictinfra » 2021-08-05 18:28:19

An additional idea regarding info leak.

Disable GoTo for tiles where there is ANY enemy influence, dominant or not. So there you have to move tile by tile, "by hand", using keys, without knowing the effect (MPs spent) until you move there. In real life, this is called reconnaissance and should be put to use in Longturn.

Yes, that way you also get some info about enemy nearby, but at a cost, and need to plan for it.

Also, I'd give borders without units the lowest strength factor, not 0.5.

#15 Re: Ruleset analysis and discussion » Controversial idea: Get rid of allied transport » 2021-08-02 11:36:52

... or...

History digression (that probably everyone knows, but no harm in reminding).

Dirin WWII the Western Allies were a vastly multinational force. However, there was only one man on the top of the command chain: Dwight Eisenhower. Each national army, by law, had their own supreme commander, but this was temporarily overridden for the purposes of that particular war.

End digression and you already know where this is going.

Patch: Allow player to cede command over his particular unit(s) to another player. Technicalities can have many forms, but the first one that comes to my mind:
- you give control for the next turn, order comes in power on TC and lasts until next TC
- you must do this for each individual unit, every turn (ctrl-V applies)

#16 Re: New games » 2 team/island games and the ruleset changes we need to have for those » 2021-02-08 00:02:37

Actually, island games would be fitting for "no killstack". The chance for encountering a super stack are much smaller because everything has to be transported by water, and it would make invasions much easier and, at the same time, not too powerful with units immediately attacking and conquering cities.

#17 Re: LT59 » Rule changes from LT53 » 2021-01-12 19:02:11

I have a feeling you are talking about Freeciv Web.

#18 Re: New games » One player legally controls several nations » 2021-01-12 18:59:56

I am not sure what exactly this post is about. You are giving an idea or warning about something or complaining or...?

#19 New games » Idea for a new game: LT Carousel » 2020-12-17 18:29:15

Replies: 1

I mentioned this idea a while ago, and I'm not sure, I think it's even not mine originally, but I can't remember where I picked it up. I've been thinking about it for a while, and I'm very close to solving how it can actually be done even without any tweaks to the servers and rulesets.

The basics:
Every player runs a nation for a limited period of time. Then he, as a ruler, "dies", takes over some other nation, while his nation is taken over by someone else. What counts is the progress he has made during his rule.

The details:
After the game starts, the clock starts ticking. Let's say you have 20 turns (number can be discussed) to rule uninterrupted, but then the probability starts to increase that the next turn will be your last. Eventually the dice are cast and you're done with this nation. You sit on the bench waiting for the next ruler to "die" to take over his spot. Your previous nation is taken by the player who was sitting on the bench previously.

All players switch nations at the same time.

The score:
I haven't checked full math, but as a first approximation this model sounds reasonable. For this, the in-game score must be known from the beginning. During the first segment, when you "die", your score is calculated and normalised for total score of all players. (If all players combined have score 200 and yours is 20, you hold 10%) During your second segment/rule, what counts is the difference between the Normalised Score at the beginning and the end of your rule. If you start your nation with 12% and end with 14%, 2% is added to your initial Normalised Score. So, in each segment, you gain or lose % depending on how you ruled.

The mechanics:
"Blank" players are created on LT.net. They can be given any names, maybe it's best to tie them to nations. Then standard, live human players are delegated into those nations. When the segment/rule period is over, the delegation is simply changed by the LT admin.

When to switch:
One model for the probability of transition could be 1% for turn 20-25, 2% for turn 25-30 and then the probability increases for 2% every turn. So, theoretically, a player can run his nation for a maximum of 80 days total, but it is most likely it will last maybe 40 days. (Not 50, probabilities multiply, they don't add.) Of course, this is only one model. Probabilities can be modeled according to anything that is agreed on. Of course, this is just the example model, anything else can be agreed.

As always, comments are welcome.

#20 Re: New games » Less narrow and more... hollistic... scoring » 2020-12-16 20:44:06

Ok, after some thinking, then some incubating ideas and some more thinking, I'm considering this:

Total score = classic in-game score * literacy % * GDP per capita (economy per population points)

#21 Re: LT58 » LT58 has started » 2020-12-16 20:36:54

What is "unfair setup for the islands"?

#22 New games » Idea for a new learning/practicing/sandbox/tutorial game » 2020-12-16 20:34:49

Replies: 0

After the "Learning LT" game is finished, we could start a new one, if there are people who may be interested.

The purpose, again, would be to create a map for completely new people to get familiar with LT settings. However, this could also be used for a testing battleground for more or less experienced players, as long as they follow the rules.


Fair islands.

Players' home islands are "untouchable", you are not allowed to conquer them. However, there are additional islands that everybody is free to fight for.

This way new people are free to explore the economic game features on their island, but also investigate combat features on terrain that is isolated from their homeland.

Additional feature: create "Blank" players in LT system so that new players can join after the game has started through LT admin delegation.

Also, once a player has had enough fun with his nation and decides he is not interested in playing (or has gone idle for X turns), his nation is weakened and given to a new player if one appears. If nations are possible to revert back to stone age, the game can be endlessly recycled without restarting.

Ruleset tweaks required:

1. Small tech upkeep used to leech techs from idle/abandoned nations and make them restartable again

2. Suicide/migrant unit used to leech idle/abandoned cities: very cheap, no shield/money upkeep and maybe a lot of food upkeep

Technical problems and possible solutions:

In order to create a favourable map with fair islands available for conquest, it may be necessary to create a number of AIs to occupy the islands. Map generator on this setting only creates large island if it is to be a nation's starting point. I would say that the number of AI islands, that are to be used as non-home and thus battle islands, should be at least equal to the number of player islands.

#23 Re: LT58 » LT58 has started » 2020-12-16 13:55:53

I'm thinking... Maybe publishing this is not such a good idea. Let people discover stuff by themselves. This may spoil the surprise a bit, it's nothing game-breaking, but just decreasing the fun of not knowing.

#24 Re: LT57 » The winning conditions and the ruleset for LT57 » 2020-11-28 00:01:25

What is the point of a score victory if this is a team game?

#25 Ruleset analysis and discussion » Corbeau's wishlist » 2020-11-21 12:16:10

Replies: 0

I've been planning this for a long time, will just post quick notes for now, make more comprehensive list a bit later. This is basically a reminder for me.

I wants it now:

1. unhomed (or all) units are paid (gold upkeep) from national budget, not individual city

2. food overflow is saved when city grows (can only grow 1 size per turn)

3. can use chat for /cut City1 City2 to cut a traderoute between the two named cities

4. "Bombarder" may move away after bombardment


5. COMPLETELY invisible unit (flag), can not be detected unless enemy unit bumps into it and then combat happens

6. bombarding duels: if a "Bombarder" unit is attacked by bombardment, it fires back causing damage to the attacking unit (not tile)

7. privateers: units without national flags, can't be detected to which nation they belong (should probably be combined with chat remote orders to move at a certain time during turn)

8. can not acquire (steal, treaty) more techs if you are in negative bulbs or if it would put you into negative bulbs. And at some point (at -500 or more) you should start losing techs, but only 1 per turn

9. more flexible score

10. HP loss delay (when away from city/base) - a ujnit that loses HP when it spends the TC outside of city/base doesn't start losing HP immediately, but after X turns

11. a series of chat commands for programming unit movement. For example:
/tcmove unitID (x,y) - sets the GoTo command for the specified ujnit to the specified coordinates after the next TC
/tcmovetile (x1,y1) (x2,y2) - same as above, applies to all units at tile (x1,y1)
/tcmovetype Type (x1,y1) (x2,y2) - same, applies to all units of the specified type on tile (x1,y1)
/relocate City (x1,y1) - if a unit is built in City the next turn, it is immediately given GoTo order to (x,y)

long shots:
FCW style of reports under sentry or something to the same effect

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB